In the Arena

Wounded Elephant Screechings

elephant

“I rarely heard a speech by a president so shallow, so hyper-partisan and so intellectually dishonest, outside the last couple of weeks of a presidential election where you are allowed to call your opponent anything short of a traitor.

That was Charles Krauthammer after Barack Obama’s speech yesterday. And here’s Pistol Pete Wehner:

President Obama’s speech today was both outrageous and insulting, a practically perfect combination of demagoguery and shallowness. It was not a serious substantive speech; it was a political missile whose intention is was to destroy, through libel, the House Republican’s 2012 budget. It was not an effort to engage in a serious discussion; it was an effort to create a cartoon image of Obama’s critics.

Oooh. Ouch. I could print another dozen such rantings, but why bother: these are the sounds hyper-partisans make when they’ve been successfully skewered. Republican World has become a very self-referential place, only vaguely in touch with reality. There is Fox News, there is the Weekly Standard, Powerline and the other clautrophobic blogs, there is Rush and the other radio screamers. When the same message is repeated over and over again–Obama is a spendthrift! He’s a socialist! He’s creating these huge deficits!–even intelligent conservatives, like Krauthammer, begin to believe it. (And sadly, far too many of my columnar colleagues have gone along with the deficit as be-all-and-end-all myth.)

And so it’s painful when reality intrudes. Here is the reality: the Republicans have spent the past 30 years creating deficits and the Democrats have spent the past 30 years closing them. The unimportance of deficits became an article of faith during the second Bush Administration: “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter,” Dick Cheney famously said. It has been rather hilarious for those of us with even a minimal grasp of recent history to watch these folks pull fierce 180-degree turns on the issue–and it is even more hilarious to watch them accuse Obama of hyper-partisanship after the dump-truck full of garbage they visited upon his head these past few years.

Indeed, the sheer hatred that Republicans have for Obama has led them to overreach, to latch onto Paul Ryan’s well-outside-the-mainstream budget plan. They now face a presidential election where they are completely tied to the idea of destroying the most popular government program out there–Medicare. They are now tied to the incredibly cruel and witless notion that they’re going to ask 90-year-olds to make free market choices, with vouchers constantly diminishing in value, in an extremely complicated health market. And most important, as the President said, they are now tied to a slick attempt to make middle class people pay more for Medicare while demanding lower taxes for the wealthy.

And so, the predictable screechings: It’s class warfare (as if Ryan’s plan isn’t)! It’s vague (actually, it’s based on the findings of the bipartisan deficit reduction commission)! It’s hyper-partisan (guffaw)!

From the start, I’ve said that Ryan’s plan was courageous. It was proved so yesterday–kamikazi courageous. It lays plain the true intentions of latter day radical conservatism: the gutting of the social safety net. Republicans will now have to run on this principle. We should all be grateful to Ryan for his intellectual honesty. The President should be especially grateful.

Oh, and finally, here’s the ultimate Republican response to Obama’s speech, from John Podhoretz: maybe the President’s emphasis on budget cutting wasn’t such a good idea in the first place, maybe he should have been more concerned about goosing the economy. This, at least, has an element of truth to it: all this deficit-cutting has been a diversion from Obama’s immediate task, the job most Americans want done–getting the economy back on track. To the extent that the President has allowed the Republicans to divert him into this foolishness, JPod has a point.

Related Topics: Republican Party
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    It has been rather hilarious for those of us with even a minimal grasp of recent history to watch these folks pull fierce 180-degree turns

    The problem is twofold. Not everyone is old enough or attentive enough for ‘recent history’ to be part of their direct experience. And the folks who might have a chance to teach recent history in the media are either too busy chasing down the latest fad or like Joe here from the center left or Fox from the right, too clearly operating from a specific viewpoint that they can be dismissed as partisan. hence the actual truth of the matter gets lost.

  • outsider2011

    Just elephant turds

  • hippooath

    I love when GOP who have made class warfare a way of life p!ss their pants about reality and call it ‘class warfare’. While I have no doubt that Obama will find a way to let his centrist dogma screw up any kind of reality he painted in his speech I’m fairly sure your everyday American (if they ever heard the speech itself) agrees. But then they won’t really hear the speech; they will get the talking point bulletins from pundits and journalists. Journalists who are too willing to list the he and she said versions rather than provide the context and also call out the BS.

    We all know that the right radio and fox news will scream in angst over this ‘OMG so partisan’ ideas, but if journalists instead did their job of giving the information to listeners and readers; unvarnished by the partisan gobble, there’s no doubt that most people will back the president.

    Paul Ryan put forward a fantasy plan and the very action of presenting it was the epitome of bravery. Obama speaks uncomfortable truths and it’s not detailed enough. What’s with people and journalists that find something worthwhile in unicorn math but really don’t want to talk about the context of our reality because it doesn’t bolt down every single figure?

    I don’t mind a discussion about how we reach fiscal balance which has to be a matter of cuts and tax increases, but why are we poisoning the well and make it about baloney talk?

    We hear the screeching of the ideologues here – parroting the same garbage and drivel fed to them from blogs, radio and TV – is it possible to ignore the punditry and outrage and focus on levelheaded discussions instead? Maybe I’m asking too much of journalists today that find more interest in the verbal artillery than the essence of the stuff that moves voters to hopefully do the right thing. I don’t want voters to vote liberal or conservative based on who has the microphone, I want them to vote that way because that person has the best ideas and I’m tired of journalists ambulance chasing the shock and awe of partisan rhetoric.

  • Ivy_B

    All the emphasis on deficit cutting has indeed been a distraction. I think it was in something you wrote recently that it is only of interest inside the Beltway. Unfortunately there have been endless articles written about it and the wrangling about it and the sheer volume begins to make a dent in people’s consciousness.

    I was shocked to read an article in Morning Reads that noted public attitudes on raising the debt ceiling.

    Destroying the full faith and credit of the United States of America is no small matter—which makes it all the more frightening that so many Americans want to see it happen. Forty-six percent of those surveyed in a Mar. 31-Apr. 4 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll said they opposed raising the debt ceiling. The pollsters asked the question again after giving the two sides of the argument: Some say that if the ceiling isn’t raised, bills, benefits, government salaries, and interest won’t get paid. Others say raising the ceiling “will make it harder to get the government’s financial house in order,” increasing debt held by other countries and owed by future generations. After considering those two propositions, the public’s opposition to raising the debt ceiling increased, to 62 percent.

    I think this is also the result of poor information and news articles focused on distractions. It could have very serious consequences, but has been portrayed as a good idea so that the very serious people can get more concessions to cut the deficit.

    Of course if we had a Republican president right now, I’ll bet we wouldn’t be having these deficit discussions at all.

  • Matt

    Most outrageous of all is the Republican refusal to even consider rolling back the massive Bush tax cuts for the rich that did nothing to boos the economy and have cost us a trillion dollars added to our debt and deficit, plus the hundreds of billions in additional tax cuts passed last year. Of course, why would the GOP embrace simply reverting to the tax rate of the prosperous ’90′s when the silly Ryan budget calls for an even deeper tax cut for the rich, of at least 10%. Irresponsible…
    http://www.sunstateactivist.org

  • notfooledbydistractions

    The partisians could have saved a few keystrokes and simply responded with a collective “WWAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!” That pretty much summarizes the response from the right.

    Good lord, they’re acting like spoiled 7 year olds that didn’t get their way. So presenting an opposing opinion and disproving the rights budget with facts is a no-no these days? If they can’t take criticism of their totally ridiculous “budget” plan, then perhaps they should find a new line of work. Or, perhaps Mr. Ryan should just grow up and toss his Randian fantasies where they truly belong, in the trash heap.

  • nflfoghorn

    “intelligent conservatives” = oxymoron
    .
    Emphasis off ‘oxy-’.

  • nflfoghorn

    How partisan of me…
    but can you blame me?? :)

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    The funny thing is, outside of right-wing paramedia propagandists and infotainment personalities, everyone already knew that the Ryan budget was completely unserious. http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/04/09/id-add-a-couple-things/

    Actually reading the bill, realizing it isn’t serious, it isn’t bold, that it won’t set us on the right path because it gives away as much in taxes as it cuts from the needy, realizing the only people sacrificing are the poor while the well-off are lavished with trillions in tax cuts- well, doing that and actually thinking, like Bruce Bartlett, James Fallows, Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, and others managed to do, that would be just way too much work.

    It’s funny to see Wehner go all emo about the utterances of plain and evident truths.
    -
    President Obama yesterday quoted David Stockman– like Bartlett a former Reagan tax & budget official– calling Ryan’s cocktail-napkin policy/alternate universe Randian fanfic anything but serious and courageous.
    -
    The problem is, anyone who believed anything that the GOP said about policy in the 1980s is a Democrat now. -
    The GOP went from “deficits don’t matter” to “OMG DEFICIT GONNA MURDER MA BEBIES” lickety split, as soon as they found someone they could hate when they think about the budget. They are motivated entirely by tribalism. So if you present facts to a Republican about historical tax rates, income levels, comparative health care spending, or anything else, they denounce those facts, and their source, as politically incorrect.
    -
    It’s quite a mystery how we enact any policies at all– much less ones that make any sense– when one of the two major parties no longer has policy preferences. And when the MSM is conditioned to report “balance,” rather than “accuracy.” Our discourse is hopelessly biased toward stupid.

  • square1

    Isn’t it fascinating? Obama moves to his left and immediately he is infused with a new vitality and the GOP is playing defense.

    The Beltway CW is dominated by Third-Way corporatist clowns who would have Democrats believe that proudly defending liberal principles is a political loser. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. As if we needed more evidence after the Democrats’ political fortunes plummeted between 2008 and 2010.

    Obama has two choices. He can boldly stay on the course that he laid out yesterday. That path leads to the Democrats retaking the House and possibly accomplishing something.

    Or Obama can yield to the GOP, Blue Dogs, Wall Street, and K Street lobbyists and go back to putting Medicare, government regulations, and economic growth on the chopping block. In that case, the Democrats will continue their downward spiral into irrelevancy.

  • http://scrimbul.wordpress.com scrimbul

    ‘Of course if we had a Republican president right now, I’ll bet we wouldn’t be having these deficit discussions at all.’
    .
    You should be careful with this comment, the subtle nuance behind it can be taken either way despite knowing full well your personal context to it with only a week’s worth of minimal browsing of past posts.

  • hippooath

    No, I take your timid insult since we know it’s going to be returned as soon as our righties load up on the regurgitated talking points today.

  • nflfoghorn

    I wouldn’t say that they’ll circle the Drain of Irrelevancy, but what I would say (and tried to say yesterday) is that negotiating and pseudo-compromising hasn’t helped his standing. I know government is still running, but he may need to finally, FINALLY take a major stand here.

  • http://scrimbul.wordpress.com scrimbul

    Republicans will become irrelevant before Democrats will, unless they do a 180 and have more measured, moderate policy positions.
    .
    However, it’s become obvious that mixing Blue Dog anything is going to stifle needed progress with confliction opinions generated by erroneous information that, yet again, is still spoonfed via media ‘banal balance’

  • robbert5

    Square1,
    if you mean that Obama went from right to center-right position only to return to a rightwing position after negotiations with the repubs and declare it a winner for liberals you are right.

  • ohiolibb

    Actually, Joe, you forgot the asterisk.

    “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter*,” Dick Cheney famously said
    -
    -
    -

    *When Rs are in charge.

  • filmnoia

    What Obama did yesterday is paint Ryan, Boehner, et al. into an ideological box where tax cuts for the rich and cutting govt. spending for middle class programs is supposed to solve everything. They will now be viewed as extremists by even the low information voter.
    If (a big “if”) Obama stays firm and doesn’t cave , 2012 can look a lot like 2006 and 2008. The over reach by the GOP in the Midwest has been a big boon to the Dems that will carry over into the next election. Maybe all those blue collar so-called “Reagan Democrats” have finally woken up to realize who the real enemy is.

  • stuartzechman

    Without specific policies, and relying on Bowles-Simpson as a framework, the course Obama laid out yesterday is indistinguishable from Third Way’s, unfortunately.
    .
    Homage to “the great liberal achievements of the 20th century” is usually accompanied by “…but, for the 21st century, we need modern solutions to the information-age challenges our country faces…”
    .
    This is a tough moment of ambiguity, and this guy has lied in this manner before, during almost the entirety of the 2008 campaign (and primary campaign).
    .
    To fulfill yesterday’s rhetoric with Third Way policy, He doesn’t have to put Medicare or Medicaid on the chopping block, he just has to “save” them in Progressive Policy Institute fashion, a la the PPACA.
    .
    I’m waiting to see what “strengthen the IPAB” means in specific policy terms.
    .
    What I don’t get is the rhetorical rejection of Ryan’s Medicare exchange plan, unless they’re resorting to the trickery of mis-labeling it “vouchers,” as Joe Klein has dishonestly taken to spewing.
    .
    Without policy, and only words, it’s tough to read, at least for me. That’s precisely the kind of chicanery that got Obama my vote in the ’08 primary, though, so I’m being extremely cautious.

  • 53_3

    deoxymoron?
    .
    A moron in respiratory failure?

  • 53_3

    I seem to remember somewhere saying that this day would come.
    .
    It’s up to Obama to stick to his guns. He’s pulled ‘em out, and given the situation, he may have to use them…

  • http://grapemusing.blogspot.com/ grape_crush

    It was proved so yesterday–kamikazi courageous. It lays plain the true intentions of latter day radical conservatism: the gutting of the social safety net.

    Ah, so we’re still defining courageous as meaning “willing to put your warts and festering sores on public display.” I suppose that might qualify as bravery, if the right-wing crowd supporting Ryan’s plan considered his proposal as defective and needing of heavy makeup.

    And lest Klein complain that I’m ignoring the other aspects of what he’s written here…thanks for mentioning some of the things that most on the left have been saying for at least a couple of years, Joe.

  • earljr1

    CNN Poll: Majority of Independent Voters Disapprove of Obama |
    This is where the election will be decided and it certainly does NOT look good for Obama. Independent voters bought into his “change you can believe in” message in 2008 and he simply failed to deliver the goods. His leadership is woefully weak, he has done nothing to dissipate partisan rancor (it has only worsened) He has allowed spending to escalate out of control and his foreign policy is ambiguous, at best.
    67% of Americans feel this country is headed in the WRONG direction and Mr. Obama is at the wheel. It is high time for him to start assuming responsibility and admit mistakes were made…some of them of major magnitude.

  • shepherdwong

    I think it was in something you wrote recently that it is only of interest inside the Beltway. Unfortunately there have been endless articles written about it and the wrangling about it and the sheer volume begins to make a dent in people’s consciousness.
    .
    Absolutely. This is an (silly) old trick of journalists, to publicly pretend that they themselves aren’t strongly influencing politics and public opinion.

    To the extent that the President has allowed the Republicans to divert him into this foolishness…

    As if every action Obama has taken wasn’t for the benefit of centrist Beltway scribes like Joe and pathologically non-partisan idiot swing voters. He has (rightly) never cared one whit what Republicans think.

  • shepherdwong

    This is important:

    Republican World has become a very self-referential place, only vaguely in touch with reality. There is Fox News, there is the Weekly Standard, Powerline and the other clautrophobic blogs, there is Rush and the other radio screamers. When the same message is repeated over and over again–Obama is a spendthrift! He’s a socialist! He’s creating these huge deficits!–even intelligent conservatives, like Krauthammer, begin to believe it. (And sadly, far too many of my columnar colleagues have gone along with the deficit as be-all-and-end-all myth.)

    The discussion about the effects of the right-wing propaganda machine must begin in earnest if we are going to fix the body politic of this country. The important truth that is left out of this statement is: 1) the effect it has had on their audiences – that, as a result, millions of Americans are now only “vaguely in touch with reality” – and the corporatist, plutocratic goals behind this indoctrination campaign.

  • square1

    @stuartzechman: Just want to make clear what I am and am not saying. I am not saying that Obama will necessarily follow through on the pledges that he made yesterday.
    .
    Nor am I denying that, should Obama wish to, he can attempt to square his speech with Third-Way doctrine.
    .
    My point was about the response to the speech. Whether or not you can read between the lines and find Simpson-Bowles hidden in Obama’s words, the fact is that it was generally perceived to be a liberal speech and not a Third-Way speech. And the fact that it was generally well-received is directly correlated to the fact that it was perceived to be liberal.

  • apr2563

    Joe, you may disagree with Ryan’s plan but insist on calling it courageous. In my mind to be courageous one must have the “courage of their convictions”.
    .
    I don’t think Ryan believes his plan is anything more than a sop to the plurocrats and a kick to the curb for the middle class and poor. Yet, he sells it as a something that will be a boon to everyone.
    .
    Lying is courageous?

  • stuartzechman

    Thanks for clarifying, sqr1.
    .
    Are you sure, though?
    .
    Are you sure that generally positive responses are due to the possible implied liberalism imbued in yesterday’s rhetoric?
    .
    Might it be a simple, partisan response?
    .
    I see your point –I do, now– and it’s worth considering, but I’m wondering if it’s something else than implied ideology or policy goals that garnered decent (for a 9% unemployed public) reception.
    .
    Not arguing with you; just trying to figure it out.

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    “millions of Americans are now only “vaguely in touch with reality”
    .
    Yeah, try selling that one you delusional old fool. America’s eyes are open like never before.

  • shepherdwong

    Riiiight. And Obama is a Kenyan, Muslim Socialist who has taken over the healthcare system to institute death panels. And who are you calling old?

  • shepherdwong

    Are you sure that generally positive responses are due to the possible implied liberalism imbued in yesterday’s rhetoric?
    .
    “[P]possible implied liberalism”? Jesus, Stuart, regardless of the policy it was selling, it was a liberal speech. Ed Schultz was gushing and Joan Walsh was down right giddy afterward. It was the defense of progressive government liberals have been pining for for more than two years now. Liberal ODS strikes again?

  • apr2563

    correction: plutocrats

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    “it was generally perceived to be a liberal speech and not a Third-Way speech.”
    .
    Just like he was generally perceived to be a liberal during the 2008 campaign (rightly or wrongly). That’s why Americans embraced him, b/c they felt the country needed a corrective dose of liberalism after 8 yrs. of conservative insanity (in fact, 30 years of uncorrected Reaganomics).
    .
    That said, villagers are all clucking about the billion $ he’s expected to raise for 2012. If liberals (not partisans) end up pleased by his actions over the next two years, we can expect a much lower # filling his coffers. So, he can please his base (and even if they don’t recognize it, most Americans), or he can antagonize his patrons and jokers like Klein. Which way does victory lie? In his perception?

  • wagedronenumber9

    It’s wrong to think, apr2563, that Ryan truly doesn’t believe in the policies that he argues in the budget. He wholeheartedly believes in them because he is a freemarketeer who doesn’t want the government involved in any economic activity, which he views the health care industry as being a part of. I don’t know if you ever heard the idea of “the government should only protect the borders and deliver the mail”, but it is a simple redux of the philosophy that defines what the right generally thinks about what the proper role of the government is in a capitalistic society. It’s why they keep calling Obama a “socialist,” because they see his health care plan as something which interferes in an economic activity. I know it it is an incredibly simple philosophy about government, but these people totally believe in it, which is why from time to time a RW commenter will spout off about how they hate what the liberals have done to America. What they are saying is that liberals in the end will lead the nation into ruin because anything but a pure free market system will work. JK’s article talks about “Republican World being very self-referential” and that is true for their think tanks besides their media outlets. They are very committed to their ideas because they see themselves as the saviors of the nation.

  • shepherdwong

    Which way does victory lie?
    .
    In whatever direction the centrist winds are blowing, naturally. Right now, mostly due to naked Republican extremist, they seem to be blowing in a decidedly leftward direction.

  • shepherdwong

    Agreed. Ryan is a full-on Randian believer. And these beliefs are very important rationalizations for sociopaths who do terrible things to others, in Ryan’s case to millions of senior citizens in need of medical care.

  • wagedronenumber9

    And, I’m glad that Joe Klein has finally found the right adjective to define Ryan’s budget plan….”honest”….. because it is the stuff which the Republicans have been bouncing between themselves for a long time. It is kind of refreshing to see it in plan language instead of the code language they all chat to themselves with. Now that the nation can actually understand what the Republicans are really proposing, it should be a slam dunk for Obama to use it against them. If he doesn’t protect the social contract that the New Deal signed with the working class of the nation, then the Democratic party has no identity and has lost any relevancy as a political group. Wisconsin was the line in the sand. If Obama moves a single step back from where he stands now then the Democrat party stands a good chance of imploding. Not only is this the chance to stand the line, it is the chance to move the line. And if Obama doesn’t do it, then one has to wonder if his history setting presidency really was a failure.

  • paulejb

    Joe Klein,
    .
    Barack Hussein Obama has finally admitted his adherence to unalloyed left wing dogma. His claim that the greatness of America can be measured by the number of people on the government dole is right out of the extreme liberal playbook.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Yep. He’s clearly on the side of those lucky duckies on Medicaid, two-thirds of whose spending goes to seniors and people with disabilities. They need to stop their crying and pull themselves up by their bootstraps! The will of Ayn Rand demands it!

  • paulejb

    Elvis Elvisberg@16.1,
    .
    We heard the same sort of overheated rhetoric when welfare reform was proposed in the 90s. None of the horror stories came true then, nor will they now.
    .
    It is disingenuous and slanderous to claim that Governors and State Legislatures are going to let patients die if they are given control through block grants.
    .
    The tactic of crying wolf is losing it’s effect, Elvis.

  • stuartzechman

    shepherdwong:
    .
    I just read your “Obama Derangement Syndrome” comment word-for-word on the air during the last few minutes of Virtually Speaking A-Z on BTR.
    .
    The majority of an hour (in fits and starts, explaining Bowles-Simpson, Ryan, IPAB, Medicare, etc. in between) of this conversation is devoted to addressing your arguments.
    .
    I hope you find the discussion useful, and, if not useful, entertaining, shepherdwong.
    .
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/virtuallyspeaking?ie8c=0

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    This isn’t overheated rhetoric, it’s just what Ryan wants to do. He wants to phase out Medicare and convert Medicaid to block grants.
    -
    People who look at health care costs for a living, as opposed to conservative op-ed writers, have said that “it’s well understood that converting Medicaid into block grants means cutting people off from using it, or limiting what they can use it for. You can see CBO director Doug Elmendorf say exactly the same thing here. There’s just not another way to cut costs in the program.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/cutting-medicaid-means-cutting-care-for-the-poor-sick-and-elderly/2011/03/28/AFXlFeiC_blog.html
    -
    Among the many ways in which Ryan’s plan is unserious is that it will never be enacted, because no future Congress is going to say, in the face of rising health care costs, “tough noogies, seniors and disabled people! You’re on your own!” As the CBO put it in its analysis of his plan, “It is unclear whether and how future lawmakers would address the pressures resulting from the long-term scenarios or the proposal analyzed here.”
    -
    More explication of its unseriousness can be found here: http://macroadvisers.blogspot.com/2011/04/economic-effects-of-ryan-plan-assuming.html “the macroeconomic analysis released in conjunction with the House Budget Resolution is not relevant to the coming discussion. We believe that the main result — that aggressive deficit reduction immediately raises GDP at unchanged interest rates — was generated by manipulating a model that would not otherwise produce this result, and that the basis for this manipulation is not supported either theoretically or empirically.”
    -
    Ryan’s plan would be a solid B from a high school student, in its predictable but lengthy mix of partisan talking points and numbers that don’t add up or meet with reality. But from a US Congressman, it’s trly embarrassing.

  • rwbbinla

    Maybe you have forgotten Jan Brewer’s death panels regarding healthcare that has actually resulted in death. It is not cryiing wolf! A block grant will not prevent this from happening and will just give them more money to fund their pet interests at the expense of poor and disabled people. It is the right-wing way to prosperity for the few at the expense of the many.

  • rwbbinla

    Cudos to you Elvis! @16.3

  • troubador222

    Or in Rush Limbaughs case oxy-fueled-moron

  • wagedronenumber9

    His claim that the greatness of America can be measured by the number of people on the government dole

    Being on Medicaid is being on the dole? I wish you’d be honest like Ryan was and simply come out and say it
    instead of trying to hide it from us by speaking in code.

    We heard the same sort of overheated rhetoric when welfare reform was proposed in the 90s. None of the horror stories came true then, nor will they now.

    There is a difference between providing services for people who suffer health issues and those who can’t, or won’t, strive to make their lives better. That is unless you are someone who simply believes that the government should always leave everything to the free market.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    BTW, Joe, it’s kamikaze. In this case, we could say Ryan hopes to pass “divine wind.”

  • paulejb

    Elvis Elvisberg@16.3,
    .
    It is indeed overheated rhetoric threatening gloom and doom if Medicare becomes a voucher system and Medicaid is turned over to the states.
    .
    Medicare is headed for insolvency. Barack Obama’s solution is to cut additional billions after he cut $500 billion to fund ObamaCare. Can you say “death panels?”
    .
    Block grants to the states means that their are 50 laboratories to experiment and design the best methods to reform Medicaid and eliminate the billions in fraud and abuse.
    .
    All wisdom and compassion does not reside among the bureaucratic class in Washington DC. State Governors and State legislatures have a vested interest in making this plan work.
    .
    May I remind you that we heard the same horror stories over the block granting of welfare. Needless to say, all the predictions of doom did not come to pass.

  • paulejb

    rwbbinla@16.4,
    .
    I will tell you what I told Elvis. All wisdom and compassion does not reside in the bureaucratic class in Washington DC.
    .
    State Governors and State legislators have a vested interest in making Medicaid work for their constituents if only to advance their own careers.

  • paulejb

    wagedronenumber9@16.6,
    .
    Yes indeed, #9. Being on Medicaid is being on the dole. It is not a health insurance program that you paid into all your working life and can access at age 65. Medicaid is only available to people with limited income.
    .
    If Ryan’s plan were enacted into law then the programs would be run by each state government, not by private enterprise.

  • apr2563

    I don’t think Ryan is a Randian Objectivist. I think he is a tool of lobbyists and the Heritage Foundation. He has to know his plan is seriously flawed.
    .
    There are some of the Tea Party elected officials that are sincerely Randian. But, I doubt many of them know what her cult was all about.
    .

  • http://thedailyrawr.wordpress.com rawrmaster

    Troubador, that is what we call a “win.”

    Take a bow.

  • atlantadude

    I hate to break up all the fun in the echo chamber, but it should be noted that Congress alone creates and passes budgets. The only balanced budgets we have had in the past 40+ years were during the Republican Congress in the 1990s. Yes, Clinton did sign those budgets, but only after protesting and saying the budget could not be balanced in less than a decade.

  • shepherdwong

    Why thank you, Stuart. How flattering. I’ll try to give a listen later, I hope it had the desired effect.

  • rdw56

    Exactly what do you have in mind? A govt panel perhaps to decide what gets aired?

    You twits complaining about Fox merely give Fox more cache. Obama trashing them and Limbaugh only drove their ratings higher. Rush has been celebrating MSM attacks on him since day one.

    How did you like that clip on Fox of Biden napping during Obama’s budget speech? The man is useless. So useless Obama has to keep him close and he still screws up. He can make gaffes without speaking.

    Do you remember when the MSM reported he was picked to add gravitas?

    What you need to do friends is start holding the MSM accountable for their slop. Time is so nakedly partisan they’ve lost all of their conservative and independent readers. They address a left wing choir. You can’t move the needle if you can’t reach the people in the middle. Joe isn’t as fundamentally dishonest as Dan Rather but he is equally partisan. If you don’t have objective reporters you don’t get objective reports and recommendations. Joe thinks as long as he doesn’t report the deficit is being driven primarily by spending and the drop in revenues due to the recession we won’t know. So he tried to push tax increases as a solution. That’s true only in his left wing bubble. He can sell it and Obama definitely cannot.

  • rdw56

    Exactly what do you have in mind? A govt panel perhaps to decide what gets aired?

    You twits complaining about Fox merely give Fox more cache. Obama trashing them and Limbaugh only drove their ratings higher. Rush has been celebrating MSM attacks on him since day one.

    How did you like that clip on Fox of Biden napping during Obama’s budget speech? The man is useless. So useless Obama has to keep him close and he still screws up. He can make gaffes without speaking.

    Do you remember when the MSM reported he was picked to add gravitas?

    What you need to do friends is start holding the MSM accountable for their slop. Time is so nakedly partisan they’ve lost all of their conservative and independent readers. They address a left wing choir. You can’t move the needle if you can’t reach the people in the middle. Joe isn’t as fundamentally dishonest as Dan Rather but he is equally partisan. If you don’t have objective reporters you don’t get objective reports and recommendations. Joe thinks as long as he doesn’t report the deficit is being driven primarily by spending and the drop in revenues due to the recession we won’t know. So he tries to push tax increases as a solution. That’s true only in his left wing bubble. He can’t sell it and Obama definitely cannot.

  • kathy

    Joe, the truth of what you’re saying is very painful. really makes me want to weep. I’ve listened all day to various House Republicans saying that they’re “saving” Medicare. It won’t be long, I fear, before the media takes up the chant.

    It will be interesting to see if you and others will be able to be heard through the fog of obfuscation.

    I can’t tell you how many times I’ve looked to see someone rerun the clip of Cheney disdainfully spitting “deficits don’t matter.”

    Perhaps the Christian right will give pause when they realize Paul Ryan is a devotee of Ayn Rand. Certainly many understand that there’s a red flag there.

blog comments powered by Disqus